Lionel Tessier (Class of 2009) summarized Steven Wolk's article calling for schools to restructure how they teach to include inquiry across discipline areas. Read the section of Wolk's article called "What is Inquiry-Based Teaching" (p. 118), discuss your impressions, and answer the questions below.
If possible, capture and display Wolk's diagram representing the element of classroom inquiry here:
It is not clear that organizing school around inquiry will engage all students. Choose two stages of the Wolk's inquiry model and describe how they might be engaging. What, as a teacher, would you have to do have this work for your students?
The very first stage (or where one would presumably begin), "ask questions" could be the easiest way to engage students. One simply has to put a student in a situation where his or her natural curiosity does the work for them. Examination of an every day object like a water bottle can get students wondering 'how did the water get in there?', 'Why is water so vital for survival?", "How is this bottle recycled?", and so on. Any of these could be a spring board into an inquiry investigation.
Also sharing what you have created can engage the one who shares their investigation, but also all of those who he or she shares with to an even greater extent. This is how man has engaged in inquiry since man started inquiring. One person shares their ideas and discoveries on one topic and others further the inquiry or takes it in a whole new direction. Truly all new knowledge is built upon the findings of previously asked questions. It seams natural to work this model into classrooms to get students to not simply take in information but seek it out. This is the basis of Wolk's model.
This all hinges on motivating students to ask questions to get the ball rolling. Putting students in a mind set where they begin to pay more attention to their surroundings should naturally stir their take on everyday life and get them to stop accepting everything as it is without asking 'why?'.
This is inconsistent with Wolks model as his model has inquiry as a constant process. For every step new questions can be asked or old ones re-asked. After each step in his process rather reaching a conclusion instead he encourages for you to move onto the next question that the results/answer prompt you to investigate. The scientific precess has an end result which could become a cycle if after your conclusions you add in a section on 'what questions does this result bring up?'.
I agree with Mary, in that while the scientific method is traditionally seen as a beginning to end process, the end can easily lead to a new beginning. For example if a student creates a hypothesis and then disproves it through experimentation, the null or alternative hypothesis could be investigated. In fact even if the hypothesis is proven correct more queries could surely arise, and the process can begin again. In this way the scientific method is very consistent with Wolk's model.
If possible, capture and display Wolk's diagram representing the element of classroom inquiry here:
It is not clear that organizing school around inquiry will engage all students. Choose two stages of the Wolk's inquiry model and describe how they might be engaging. What, as a teacher, would you have to do have this work for your students?
The very first stage (or where one would presumably begin), "ask questions" could be the easiest way to engage students. One simply has to put a student in a situation where his or her natural curiosity does the work for them. Examination of an every day object like a water bottle can get students wondering 'how did the water get in there?', 'Why is water so vital for survival?", "How is this bottle recycled?", and so on. Any of these could be a spring board into an inquiry investigation.
Also sharing what you have created can engage the one who shares their investigation, but also all of those who he or she shares with to an even greater extent. This is how man has engaged in inquiry since man started inquiring. One person shares their ideas and discoveries on one topic and others further the inquiry or takes it in a whole new direction. Truly all new knowledge is built upon the findings of previously asked questions. It seams natural to work this model into classrooms to get students to not simply take in information but seek it out. This is the basis of Wolk's model.
This all hinges on motivating students to ask questions to get the ball rolling. Putting students in a mind set where they begin to pay more attention to their surroundings should naturally stir their take on everyday life and get them to stop accepting everything as it is without asking 'why?'.
Many teachers represent the "scientific method" as a linear process. How Is this consistent/inconsistent with Wolk's model?
This is inconsistent with Wolks model as his model has inquiry as a constant process. For every step new questions can be asked or old ones re-asked. After each step in his process rather reaching a conclusion instead he encourages for you to move onto the next question that the results/answer prompt you to investigate. The scientific precess has an end result which could become a cycle if after your conclusions you add in a section on 'what questions does this result bring up?'.
I agree with Mary, in that while the scientific method is traditionally seen as a beginning to end process, the end can easily lead to a new beginning. For example if a student creates a hypothesis and then disproves it through experimentation, the null or alternative hypothesis could be investigated. In fact even if the hypothesis is proven correct more queries could surely arise, and the process can begin again. In this way the scientific method is very consistent with Wolk's model.